HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2010, B 1 - HIGHWAY 1 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY r ^ ,
council July 6`",2010
j acEnba Repoat �N� 1
C I T Y OF SAN LU I S O B I S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works
John Mandeville, Director of Community Development
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager
Kim Murry, Deputy Director Community Development
Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Highway 1 Major Investment Study
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive and discuss the draft Major Investment Study for State Route 1 between Sterner
Creek Road and the Highway 101 interchange.
2. Adopt a resolution endorsing the Major Investment Study.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Based on a concern of growing traffic congestion and degraded safety on Highway 1 through the
City of San Luis Obispo, regional transportation agencies commissioned a Major Investment
Study (MIS) to determine future circulation deficiencies. The overall intent of a MIS is to
establish a basis for planning future infrastructure improvements and estimating the fiscal
resources to implement them. The study has identified the need for major infrastructure
improvements at the intersection of Foothill and Highway 1 by 2014 and the interchange at
Highway 1 and Highway 101 by 2027. The study has also identified the need for a grade
separated pedestrian crossing at Highway 1 and Boysen that should be timed with or before the
improvements at Foothill & Highway 1 by 2014. Unfortunately there is not likely enough time to
complete major improvements at Foothill & Highway 1 before deficiencies are expected to
occur, staff will however pursue project funding and implementation as quickly as possible. In
regards to priority with the LOVR interchange, any project identified as part of this study should
not conflict with the LOVR interchange. The LOVR interchange STIP funding is already
programmed, funding for MIS project will compete against other County project in later STIP
funding cycles.
The Council's role at this point is to endorse the study, thereby acknowledging the needs
assessments identified in the report. Following this endorsement, staff will process the MIS for
approval by Caltrans and then begin pursing regional funding sources for the initiation of the
project development phase, under which these concepts will be shaped into feasible alternatives
and more accurate costs estimates will be developed.
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 2
DISCUSSION
Background
Santa Rosa Street functions as a portion of State Highway Route 1 as it passes through the City
from Highland Drive to Highway 101. As such, the State Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) has primary responsibility for safety and operations along the designated State Route
and associated right-of-way. However, State Route 1 is also a physical element of the City's
aesthetic character and functions as an integral piece of the City's circulation system. Therefore,
it is in the City's best interests to participate in developing improvements on this State route
within City limits. Consistent with the City's objectives and overall approach to the issues
identified as part of this study, it is also Caltrans' policy to use innovative and inclusive
approaches that integrate and balance community, aesthetic, historic, and environmental values
with transportation safety, maintenance and performance goals.
In response to increasing traffic volume and congestion along State Route 1/Santa Rosa Street
between Stenner Creek Road and Highway 101, Caltrans and the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) allocated $400,000 towards the investigation of solutions to improve
safety, operations, community enhancement and access along State Route 1. In February 2009,
an agreement between the City, Caltrans and SLOCOG appointed the lead agency role to
perform the MIS to the City of San Luis Obispo.
The MIS implements Circulation Element program 9.1.7 which states:
"The City shall ask the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to: Sponsor a study
that addresses the traffic needs of regional corridors that serve east-west traffic
between San Luis Obispo and the coast to include an evaluation of.
1. Reconstructing the Santa Rosa Street interchange to improve State Route
I/Highway 101 connections.
2. Widening Santa Rosa Street to six lanes between Olive Street and Foothill
Boulevard.
3. Constructing an underpass or an overpass at Foothill Boulevard and Santa Rosa
Street to reduce intersection congestion.
4. Constructing a reliever route for State Route 1.
The study should be conducted within the context of the City's transportation policies
and priorities."
The study provides an official preliminary investigation of operational, safety and capacity issues
that are too broad and complicated to analyze in an individual project specific planning
document. The MIS investigates long-term issues and associated improvement concepts that can
be programmed to mitigate future traffic issues that will develop as corridor conditions change.
The purpose of this MIS is to identify future roadway deficiencies that may result from
increasing traffic volumes with the goal of providing a basis for agencies to consider policy
implementation and fiscal strategies for implementing improvements to address those
deficiencies in a proactive manner. It is important to understand that the alternatives identified in
this study represent conceptual examples of the types of improvements needed to address those
�1 - a
I / \
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 3
future deficiencies; this is done for the purposes of fiscal and policy planning. Any subsequent
project would be subject to applicable environmental and development review processes and
funding availability.
To date major work elements have been completed in the preparation of a draft MIS; these
include public outreach, interagency coordination, an evaluation of existing baseline traffic and
land use conditions, future forecasted land use and traffic conditions, conceptual improvement
alternatives, environmental constraints assessment, cost estimates and development of an
implementation plan. The current draft study has been developed cooperatively with Caltrans,
SLOCOG, the County of San Luis Obispo and California Polytechnic University. The City
hosted community workshops on March 3 and April 14, 2010, distributing press releases to all
local media outlets and mailing approximately 1,300 notices to adjacent property owners and
occupants for both meetings. Nine residents attended the March 3, 2010 meeting and five
residents attended the April 14, 2010 meeting. The draft study was also presented to the Planning
Commission on May 12, 2010, the Bicycle Advisory Committee on May 20, 2010, and the
SLOCOG Board on June 9, 2010. The current draft being presented to Council addresses all of
the comments and revisions requested by each of those political bodies.
City Council Role
This MIS establishes the basis for long range land use policies, general plan amendments and
updates, and major municipal construction project decisions for the State Route 1 corridor within
the City. This is a technical study with no preferred alternatives or funding strategies identified at
this point. Projects that would ultimately be developed from the concepts identified in this MIS
will be presented to Council for review and approval at a future date. Therefore, the Council's
role at this time is to receive and discuss this information presented and provide guidance and
staff direction for further development of studies and concepts. By endorsing the study, Council
acknowledges the needs identified in the report. Endorsement of the study by Council does not
represent approval of any specific concept or approach, rather provides direction to begin
planning for improvements in the areas identified. Each of the needs areas will return to Council
in the form of project study reports. At that time, Council will have the opportunity to evaluate a
range of proposed alternatives and consider funding strategies.
General Plan Policies
Figure 2 in the Circulation Element recognizes Santa Rosa Street as a Highway or Regional
Route that connects the City with other parts of the county and indicates the desired maximum
level of service (LOS) as LOS D at General Plan build-out. This section of Santa Rosa Street is
also a designated truck route (Figure 5 of the Circulation Element). However, programs are
primarily directed to limit truck delivery times in the commercial core if LOS standards are
exceeded.
Policy 8.0.113: "When traffic reaches LOS "E", the City will consider the selective widening of
Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways when improvements to public safety and traffic
flow outweigh the fiscal and environmental costs, and do not hinder this plan's alternative
transportation policies."
1 -3
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 4
Program 9.1.10 speaks to the streetscape desired for this and other major roadways to promote
the City's visual quality and character and integrate the highway with surrounding districts and
uses. The program encourages the creation of a streetscape with median planters and widened
parkway plantings using water-conserving native plants; under-grounding overhead utilities and
use of pedestrian-oriented features such as street furniture, lighting, paving, and public art to
address comfort and safety.
The Conservation and Open Space Element designates Santa Rosa Street/State Route I as a route
containing both high and moderate scenic value in various sections. Policy 9.2.1 sets out
direction for signage, street lighting, traffic signal types and tree placement to protect scenic
views where possible. Circulation Element Program 9.1.7 indicates that a study of this highway
as it passes through the City is needed. The MIS is the first step in this process.
Existing Conditions
Various studies and surveys of current traffic conditions were conducted in late 2009; these
included vehicular, transit, truck, pedestrian, and bicycle counts, traffic signal operation,
geometric design, pavement condition, capacity and traffic safety assessments. An assessment of
existing land use conditions were also evaluated and included in the MIS to develop baseline
demographics.
Currently, there are two segments of the corridor which fall below acceptable LOS service
during peak hours; Murray to Foothill in both the AM & PM peaks and Foothill to Highland in
the PM peak. These operational issues are primarily caused by the volume of traffic being at or
near current lane capacity and the long pedestrian crossing time required to cross Santa Rosa
Street. Table 2-3 below depicts the current LOS for the corridor segments. As shown in this
table,the Walnut to Olive segment which is essentially the State Route 1/Hwy 101 interchange is
on the threshold of exceeding an acceptable LOS both the AM and PM peak periods. The table
below depicts the LOS of both corridor directions and both morning and evening peak traffic,
when a corridor exceed LOS D for any direction during any of the peak periods it is considered
to be below an acceptable LOS.
Table 2-3
State Route 1 - Existing Segment LOS
North ound Southbound
Average
SpeedSegment Speed Segment Average Segment
• •
Walnut-011ve(SR 1 &101 Interchange) 24.9/20.6 CID 18.1/18.6
7 DID
Olive-Murray 22.5/22.5 C/C 29.3/30.3 B/B
Murray-Foothill 14.5/14.7 E/E 23.7/18.8
CID
Foothill-Highland 24.0/31.6 C/B 23.2/16.6 CIE
Highland-Stenner Creek 56.2/57.7 A/A 44.0/41.1 A/A
CORRIDOR AVERAGE 25.9/27.5 C/C 29.6/25.5 BIC
Br
Ijcounck agenda
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY HALL, 990 PALM STREET
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
AMENDED AGENDA
*PLEASE NOTE THE TITLE CHANGE FOR ITEM C-12
7:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING 990 Palm Street
CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda is approved on one motion. Council Members may pull consent items to be
considered after Business items. The public may comment on any item on the Consent Calendar.
C12. 200940 2010-1.1 COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS CONTRACTS.
(STANWYCK/ELKE)
RECOMMENDATION: 1. As recommended by the Tourism Business Improvement
District (TBID) Board, extend the contract for Marketing Services for the TBID
(Specification No. 90895) with Level Studios for an additional two years and authorize
the Mayor to execute the amendment to the agreement in the amount of$750,000. 2.
Authorize the City Manager to enter into various contracts for Community Promotions
not exceed the 2010-11 budget amount of$367,900 and based on the
recommendations by the Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) and the Tourism
Business Improvement District (TBID) Board. 3. Authorize the City Manager to enter
into contracts utilizing the Tourism Business Improvement District Fund un-appropriated
fund balance from the 2009-10 fiscal year for tourism marketing expenditures in 2010-
11.
® City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to
including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
Please speak to the City Clerk prior to the meeting if you require a hearing amplification device. For more agenda information,call
781-7100.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for
public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,during normal business hours.
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 5
Currently there are two intersections which are on the threshold of exceeding an acceptable LOS;
State Route l/Foothill Boulevard and the State Route 1/Hwy 101 interchange. Table 2-6 below
depicts the current LOS for all intersections along the corridor. These operational issues are
primarily caused by the volume of traffic being at or near current lane capacity and the long
pedestrian crossing time required to cross Santa Rosa Street.
Table 2-6
Existing Intersection LOS
Intersection Control TylpiR� AM Peak1os
PUP64k LOS
SR 1/Walnut Street(SR t 8101 Interchange) Signal D C
SR 1/0live Street(SR1 8101 Interchange) Signal A A
SR 1/Montalban Street 2-Way Stop C C
SR 1/Oak Street 2-Way Stop C C
SR 1/Murray Street Signal B B
SR 1/Meinecke Avenue 1-Way Stop B B
SR 1/Foothill Boulevard Signal D D
SR 1/Boysen Avenue 2-Way Stop D F
SR 1/1-lighland Drive Signal C C
SR 1/Westmont Avenue 1-Way Stop C C
SR 1/Stenner Creek Road 1-Way Stop F E
In addition to these primary operational deficiencies, the MIS has also identified several safety
issues such as access constraints at Stenner Creek Road and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) driveway at the northern end of the corridor, a high volume
of pedestrians and bicycles crossing State Route 1 near Boysen Street and a prevalent vehicle
versus bicycle collision pattern at the State Route 1/Hwy 101 interchange.
Future Conditions
In order to project future year 2035 conditions, a travel demand model was developed to forecast
travel demand among the various modes of transportation. These forecasts, in conjunction with
field surveys, were used to conduct assessments of signal operations, geometric design, capacity,
traffic safety, property access and pedestrianibicycle access. The future travel demand forecasts
are based on approved land use, developable acreage and current growth rates within the City
and surrounding communities. The overall growth rates estimated as part of this study range
from 0.5% to 1%, which is roughly consistent with the current growth rate, both County and
City, and lower than previously predicted growth rates. These estimates are consistent with the
City's growth management policies. It's important to understand that while State Route 1 does
provide local access, the highway largely serves as a regional route where the majority of traffic
is primarily generated by surrounding communities. Based on future traffic projections,
approximately 60-70% of the projected traffic along this corridor will be regional, not having a
destination within the City.
Based on these volume forecasts, the corridor segments that are currently on the edge of
exceeding an acceptable LOS will exceed that threshold and will essentially be failing
operationally - some as soon as 2014. Operational failure represents conditions where LOS
a � _'S
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 6
standards are exceeded, arriving vehicles have to wait more than one signal cycle to clear the
intersection, and vehicle queues continuously build peak hour arrival volumes decline. Table 6-1
depicts the vehicle LOS for the year 2035. As shown in this table, both the State Route I/Hwy
101 interchange and the Murray to Highland segment will be operating at a LOS "F" in both the
AM and PM peaks.
Table 6-1
State Route 1 Future(2035)Segment LOS
North. . Southbound
Segme--j Av . • Segment
• •
AMIPM -AM/PM AMIPM AM/PIM
Walnut-Olive(SR 1 &101 Interchange) 14/5 E/F 22/12 D/F
Olive-Murray 21/18 D/D 30/22 B/D
Murray-Foothill 6/13 F/F 27/23 C/C
Foothill-Highland 28/31 C/B 37/9 AIF
Highland-Stenner Creek 46/39 A/A 51/49 A/A
CORRIDOR AVERAGE 15117 E/E 30114 B/E
As with the corridor segments, the intersections that are currently on the threshold of exceeding
an acceptable LOS are expected to exceed that threshold and essentially be failing operationally
by as early as 2014. Table 6-2 depicts the LOS for the year 2035, as shown in this table the State
Route 1/Hwy 101 interchange and the Foothill/State Route 1 intersection will be operating at a
LOS "F'' in both the AM and PM peaks.
Table 6-2
Future(2035) Intersection LOS
e •
. -
SR 1Malnut Street(SR 1 &101 Interchange) Signal E D
SR 1/Olive Street(SR 1 &101 Interchange) Signal A B
SR 1/Montalban Street 2-Way Stop C D
SR 1/Oak Street 2-Way Stop D C
SR 1/Murray Street Signal B C
SR 1/Meinecke Avenue 1-Way Stop B B
SR 1/Foothill Boulevard Signal F F
SR 1/Boysen Avenue 2-Way Stop F F
SR 1/1-lighland Drive Signal C C
SR 1/Westmont Avenue 1-Way Stop F F
SR 1/Stenner Creek Road 1-Way Stop F F
The two primary deficiencies expected along this corridor are the intersections of State Route
I/Foothill Boulevard and the State Route 1/Hwy 101 interchange. In addition to these
deficiencies the level of pedestrian crossing demand and associated vehicle versus pedestrian
conflicts are expected to increase at Boysen Street. Therefore, it is anticipated that some form of
8 �
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 7
pedestrian restriction or provision will need to be considered at Boysen Street. Apart from
deficiencies within the City, it is also expected that the intersections at Stenner Creek Road and
Westmont/CDF Driveway will also exceed acceptable LOS. However, because these
intersections are low volume stop controlled approaches to a major state highway, low service
levels are to be expected. These intersections are also not part of City right-of-way and are
therefore not discussed in detail as part of this staff report.
In some cases it may be acceptable to have roadways operate under higher levels of congestion
with high delays and low service levels, in order to encourage transit ridership, bicycling and
walking. However, it is problematic for this corridor within City limits. Based on forecasts, if no
improvements are made, it is expected that motorists will seek alternative routes with an increase
of traffic intrusion into the surrounding neighborhoods. Access limitations to businesses and
offices along the corridor would increase as vehicle queues would block driveways. Transit
operations would degrade as buses will be delayed in the corridor congestion. Barriers to
pedestrian and bicycle access across State Route 1 worsen as traffic congestion increases. The
ultimate objective is to create a balance of all these issues, yet recognize the need to maintain the
corridor as an essential throughway for regional traffic.
Conceptual Improvements
Based on the forecasts, it is evident that significant transportation challenges lie ahead,
particularly for the State Route I/Foothill Intersection and the State Route 1/Hwy 101
interchange. If nothing is done in the next 5 to 10 years, it is expected that the level of congestion
will degrade below City and Caltrans minimum service levels and introduce impacts to adjacent
neighborhoods, businesses, and potentially degrade the alternative modes such as transit, cycling,
and walking. Conversely, the types of improvements identified as necessary to address these
issues are significant infrastructure projects which may require acquisition of right-of-way from
adjacent properties, access consolidation/removal/restriction, and may impact the aesthetics and
character of the area. The challenge is finding equitable balances among all these issues. The
concepts identified below are concepts of what is needed to address future traffic congestion.
The general approaches of these concepts are strategic improvements at specific choke points
along the corridor, which as projected would also defer or negate the need to widen State Route 1
to six lanes along the entire corridor within the foreseeable planning horizon; this approach
provides the most congestion relief for the expense incurred. It's important to understand that
these concepts are only the first step in developing measures to address these issues. These
concepts will ultimately have to be shaped into acceptable solutions through community
outreach, project development, environmental study and the public review processes. Since all
project specific information is not known at this point, it's premature to identify preferred
alternatives at this stage in the highway development process. Attachment 1 depicts the Caltrans
highway development process in a flow chart and where this study is in the process.
State Route 1/Foothill Intersection
Projections indicate that by 2014 congestion at the State Route I/Foothill intersection could
degrade below City and Caltrans minimum service levels. The reason this intersection in
particular will reach unacceptable levels within the next four years, despite slow development
and the down-turn in the economy, is that the intersection is already on the edge of exceeding
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 8
service levels during peak periods. The growth rates estimated as part of the MIS are relatively
low at 0.5% to 1% annually based on historic and current development rates, deflated economy,
and potential development capacity throughout the County. The primary deficiencies expected
are a lack of lane capacity to accommodate projected traffic volumes on all approaches to the
intersection and a high level of control delay associated with current signalized control. Four
concepts have been identified for addressing these deficiencies:
State Route I/Foothill Widening - Concept A (Attachment 2)
Concept A includes increasing the number of lanes from two to three in both the north and south
bound directions along State Route 1. The extents of the widening would likely have to occur
somewhere between Highland Drive and Murray Street. This concept provides the necessary
capacity to marginally improve the LOS from F to D at buildout year (2035). However, this
concept only has a functional life of approximately 5 years beyond that. Forecasts indicate that
widening of the north and south bound approaches to Foothill Blvd., in some form, may be an
initial phase for Concepts B. C and D. Preliminary estimates for widening at the State Route
I/Foothill range from $5-8 million. This concept should be timed with some form of pedestrian
and bicycle crossing provision at Boysen; either a restriction and redirection to Foothill/State
Route 1, or a grade separated crossing with access easements across Cal Poly and/or other
private properties to the pedestrian signal on California Blvd. across from the Alex Spanos
Stadium.
Concept A provides for minimum operating service levels but does so by increasing the overall
size of the intersection thereby making pedestrian and bicycle crossings longer. It may require
access restriction and right-of-way acquisition of properties adjacent to the intersection, and
could degrade the general aesthetic character of the area. As part of the next stage of project
development, considerations will need to be made for these issues in order for widening to be a
viable concept. In the interim, the City could consider establishing a building setback plan line in
the area to preserve needed right-of-way and limit long term right-of-way acquisition costs.
State Route 1/Foothill Roundabout- Concept B (Attachment 3)
Concept B involves eliminating signalized control of the intersection and converting to the
circular yield control of a roundabout. Forecasts indicate the need of either a two or three lane
roundabout depending on the study horizon year and operational details of the design. A two-
lane roundabout would improve operations over current operations. A two lane roundabout
would only have a functional life of approximately 10-20 years whereas the three-lane
roundabout would improve the LOS from F to an A at build-out and is forecast to have sufficient
capacity to accommodate traffic volumes past the year 2055. Preliminary estimates for the three-
lane roundabout concept range from $9-12 million depending on right-of-way needs. The
roundabout concept would be in addition to widening and would have two significant benefits
over widening alone. The combined cost for completing both widening as a phase I project and
the roundabout as a phase II project would be approximately $14420 million. First, a
roundabout would provide longer functional service life. Second, a roundabout would reduce the
overall paved area of the widened intersection. However, this concept would still require
considerations for access restrictions, right-of-way requirements, in addition to pedestrian and
bicycle access.
State Route I/Foothill Diamond Interchanjze - Concept C (Attachment 4)
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 9
The diamond interchange in Concept C involves constructing a traditional freeway type diamond
interchange at the intersection of State Route I/Foothill Boulevard where State Route 1 would be
depressed under Foothill Boulevard. State Route 1 through traffic could move uninterrupted
through the interchange. The ramps connecting State Route 1 to Foothill Boulevard would
create two new traffic signalized intersections to replace the one traffic signal that is present
today. This concept is projected to improve LOS from F to B at build-out for both traffic
signalized intersections and is forecast to have enough capacity to accommodate traffic volumes
past the year 2055. Preliminary estimates for the traditional diamond interchange range from $40
-60 million.
State Route 1/Foothill Single Point Urban Interchange - Concept D (Attachment 5)
The single point urban interchange (SPUI) in Concept D is similar to the diamond interchange in
that State Route 1 would be depressed under Foothill.Boulevard. State Route I through traffic
could move uninterrupted through the interchange. The ramps connecting State Route 1 to
Foothill Boulevard will create one traffic signalized intersection in the middle of the bridge over
State Route 1. The LOS is projected to improve from F to C at build-out. While this single
signalized intersection has a higher delay than either of the ramps signals in the diamond
interchange concept, the overall delay to the system is less with the single signal in the SPUI as
opposed to the two signals in the diamond interchange. This concept is forecast to have enough
capacity to accommodate traffic volumes past the year 2055. Preliminary estimates for the single
point interchange range from $60-80 million.
While both the traditional diamond and single point interchanges provide optimum operations
under build-out forecasts, it is likely to have the most significant impacts on adjacent properties,
pedestrian and bicycle access and general aesthetic character of the area. Due to the higher cost
of the of the interchange concepts versus the roundabout concept, an interchange may not
ultimately be the most cost-effective solution. However it is important to keep all options open
this early in the process.
State Route i/Boysen Intersection
Projections indicate that along with the congestion levels expected at the State Route 1 and
Foothill intersection by 2014 the increased pedestrian demand and vehicular volume will likely
increase the level of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts at this location. The primary issue is the
inherit conflict between maintaining traffic flow on State Route 1 and providing for a safe
pedestrian crossing. Two concepts have been identified for addressing this issue
State Route 1Bovsen Grade Separated Bike & Pedestrian Crossing - Concent A (Attachment 6)
The grade separated crossing in Concept A involves closing the left turn median area on Santa
Rosa at Boysen and constructing an undercrossing from Boysen to the Cal Poly Agriculture
fields at their southern border. This concept provides for the pedestrian crossing while
maintaining traffic flow on SR 1. A crossing of this nature should be constructed in conjunction
with any improvements made at SR 1 and Foothill. Preliminary estimates for an undercrossing
range from $4 million to $6 million.
State Route 1/Boysen Median Barrier- Concept B
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 10
The median barrier concept involves installing a wall in the median area similar to northern
sections of State Route 1. The wall would be installed to physically restrict pedestrian crossing at
this location and redirect pedestrians to cross at Santa Rosa and Foothill. This is the least
desirable concept for this location because it limits pedestrian and bicycle access.
State Route 1/Hwy 101 Interchange
Projections indicate that by 2027, traffic operations at the SR 1 and Walnut Street intersection at
the SR 1 and 101 interchange will exceed level of service E. The primary deficiencies expected
are a lack of lane capacity to accommodate projected traffic volumes and a high level of control
delay associated with signalized control. Three concepts have been identified for addressing
these deficiencies: .
State Route 1/Hwy 101 Widening-Concept A (Attachment 7)
The widening as part of Concept A involves widening and replacing the State Route 1 bridge
over Hwy 101 so that the westbound right-turn lane from Walnut Street onto State Route 1 could
be converted into a free movement, such that vehicles will be able to make a protected right turn
into a dedicated lane. This is accomplished by constructing an additional northbound lane on
State Route 1 to receive the right-turns from Walnut Street without the vehicles being controlled
by the traffic signal. Additionally, the northbound, southbound and eastbound left-tum
movements are proposed to be eliminated as these create additional delays and are redundant
movements which have access to Hwy 101 at the same interchange using other ramps. This
concept is projected to improve the LOS from E to an A at build-out of the Walnut Street
intersection. These improvements are projected to provide enough capacity to accommodate
traffic volumes past the year 2055. This concept will improve the operations of State Route 1,
but does not address the operations along Hwy 101 or the interchange ramps that do not meet
current design standards. Preliminary estimates for widening range from$20-40 million.
State Route 1/Hwy 101 Diamond Interchange - Concept B
The diamond interchange provided as Concept B at Hwy 101 involves removing the existing on
and off-ramps along Hwy 101 and reconstructing a new diamond-shaped interchange at Hwy
101 and State Route 1. Two new traffic signal controlled intersections will be constructed along
State Route 1 where the on-and-off ramps from Hwy 101 intersect. The LOS is projected to
improve from E to A at build-out. This improvement is forecast to provide enough capacity to
accommodate traffic volumes past the year 2055. This concept will improve operations along
State Route 1 as well as Hwy 101 by eliminating ramps and short-weaving sections that do not
meet current design standards. Due to substantial right-of-way requirements and construction
costs, preliminary estimates for the diamond interchange concept range from $40-60 million.
State Route 1/Hwy 101 SPUI - Concept C (Attachment 8)
The SPUI Concept C is similar to the diamond interchange in that the concept involves removing
the existing short on-and-off ramps along Hwy 101 and constructing a new SPUI between Hwy
101 and State Route 1. The ramps connecting Hwy 101 to State Route 1 will create one traffic
signalized intersection in the middle of the bridge over Hwy 101. The LOS is projected to
improve from'E to an A at build-out. While this single signalized intersection has a higher delay
than either of the ramp signals in the diamond interchange concept, the overall delay to the
system is less with the single signal in the SPUI as opposed to the two signals in the diamond
� 1 -/0
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 11
interchange. Another benefit of the SPUI over the diamond interchange is the SPUI has a
smaller footprint, requiring less right-of-way. However, this is in exchange for higher
construction costs. This concept is forecast to have enough capacity to accommodate traffic
volumes past the year 2055. Preliminary estimates for the single point interchange concept range
from $50-70 million.
Overall State Route 1 Corridor
State Route 1 Corridor Stenner Creek Bike Trail - Concew A
The Stenner Creek Bike Trail Concept A involves providing a bicycle connection from
downtown to Santa Rosa Park, Foothill Blvd. and/or Cal Poly along Stenner Creek. This concept
provides a virtually direct parallel bike and pedestrian route which can serve as an alternative
transport mode bypass to the State Route 1 corridor. The three primary constraints with this
concept are that nearly the entire creek corridor is privately owned, the creek corridor is
relatively narrow in terms of Class I bike path constructability, and would likely cause
significant environmental impacts and require extensive mitigation. Assuming a bike path can be
constructed, preliminary estimates range from $2-4 million.
State Route 1 Corridor Bypass - Concept B
The State Route 1 Corridor Bypass Concept B involves providing a bypass connection from Hwy
101 somewhere between the Prado Road interchange and the Marsh Street interchange west to
the Foothill and O'Connor Way intersection in the County. This concept would also include
widening and improving O'Connor Way, west to State Route 1 near Cuesta College. This
concept was originally evaluated as part of the 1994 circulation element; however it was
dismissed at the time due to the lack of traffic volume projected on the bypass. Current
projections indicate that such a bypass would reduce traffic on Santa Rosa by approximately 15-
20%. At this conceptual level, it's difficult to estimate the costs associated with a bypass with
any sort of accuracy. Based on relatively recent highway projects in the Ventura and Los
Angeles areas, construction of a bypass could range from $8-10 millionep r mile. Therefore it's
expected that the estimate for such a bypass would likely exceed $100 million. While this
reduction in traffic does provide a measureable improvement on State Route 1, it does not negate
the need for improvements at Foothill/State Route 1 or State Route 1/Hwy 101. The bypass only
postpones the time when improvements would be needed. Due to the significant costs associated
with such a project, this concept would not likely be cost effective to pursue.
Environmental Constraints
Due to the scope and scale of all the conceptual improvements a full environmental impact
assessment is expected for any project that would be considered. An overview of environmental
constraints was performed for the MIS only for the purposes of identifying potential costs
associated with possible project mitigation. No detailed impacts or mitigations are defined at
this point. In general, the environmental resources that will likely be impacts at the Foothill
Boulevard intersection are right-of-way, access,hazardous materials sites and potential impacts
to Stenner Creek. The environmental resources that will likely be impacted at the Hwy 101
interchange are right-of-way and access.
131 -11
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 12
Implementation
The MIS recommends each of the three project locations be separated into three individual
projects. Based on current jurisdictional control, San Luis Obispo County has been
recommended as the responsible agency for Stenner Creek Road and Westmont Road
improvements, the City of San Luis Obispo has been recommended as the responsible agency for
Foothill/State Route 1 improvements and Caltrans has been recommended as the responsible
agency for the State Route 1/Hwy 101 interchange improvements. This recommendation shall
not be considered a final determination of which agency is responsible for which project, rather
this recommendation is only provided as guidance for implementation.
Due to the short period of time (4 years) before the State Route I/Foothill Blvd. intersection is
projected to fail operationally, project initiation at this location should begin within the next one
to two years. The State Route 1/Hwy 101 interchange is not projected to begin failing
operationally until 2027, therefore project initiation for that location would not have to begin
right away. However the State Route 1/Hwy 101 intersection should be closely monitored in the
mean time in case the growth rates increase and traffic volumes reach a level that necessitates
this improvement sooner than expected.
The next step after the MIS has been finalized and accepted by all of the participating agencies is
to identify the responsible agencies and program funding for the preparation of a project study
report, which would be used as the evaluation process and to seek funding for the preferred
project alternative. Once funds are programmed, project studies and environmental analysis work
can begin. Through those processes,the projects will be shaped into acceptable alternatives and a
preferred alternative selected. Once those steps are completed, the projects will begin
engineering and design phases, right-of-way acquisition, and finally construction. It's too early at
this stage of the process to determine the time frame for each of these projects due to design,
regulatory and environmental variables. However, once a project study report is completed and
funds are programmed, approximate time frames can be estimated.
The planning horizon for this study is the approximate City buildout year of 2035; however
traffic projections for years beyond the 2035 horizon were estimated to determine the functional
life of each of the concepts. The "shelf life" of this document is approximately 20 to 25 years, at
which point changes in development and traffic growth trends will likely require further study of
the corridor.
CONCURRENCES
The MIS has been developed in cooperation with the following agencies: San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments (SLOCOG), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
County of San Luis Obispo (SLO County) and California Polytechnic University (CalPoly)
Planning Commission .
A draft of the MIS was presented to the SLO Planning Commission on May 12, 2010 with a
recommendation to receive, discuss, and to forward the study and comments onto Council for
endorsement. Comments from both the public and Commissioners focused on bicycle and
pedestrian access, in terms of providing more information and ensuring pedestrian and bicycle
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 13
elements receive an equal level of planning effort. Following the Commission meeting the draft
study was revised accordingly to address these comments. Minutes from the May 12, 2010
Planning Commission are provided as Attachment 9.
Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)
A draft of the MIS was presented to the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee on May 20, 2010
with a recommendation to receive, discuss, and to forward the study and comments onto Council
for endorsement. Committee member comments were mainly focused on providing emphasis for
bicycle facilities. Following the BAC meeting the draft study was revised accordingly to address
these comments. Minutes from the May 20, 2010 BAC meeting are provided as Attachment 10.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments Board
A draft of the MIS was presented to the SLOCOG Board on June 9, 2010 to receive, discuss, and
forward recommendations to SLOCOG and City staff for inclusion in the study and to schedule
the MIS for endorsement at the SLOCOG Board meeting in August. Board member comments
were mainly concerned about the high cost of the identified concepts and their fiscal feasibility.
Official Meeting Minutes from the June 9, 2010 SLOCOG Board meeting are not yet available at
this time.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the endorsement of the MIS at this time. Once the study
is endorsed by both the Council and SLOCOG Board, City staff will begin pursing regional
funding to initiate a project study report for improvements to Santa Rosa/Foothill and the Boysen
undercrossing.
Funding for the MIS itself is provided by a one-time $400,000 allocation by a State grant with a
deadline of June 30, 2010 for any reimbursable expenditures. All contract expenditures have
been exhausted before this. deadline date. As of this report, there are no remaining funds
available for further additions or revisions to this study.
ALTERNATIVE
Do Not Endorse the MIS. The City Council may choose not to endorse the MIS and return the
item to staff for further consideration. However, staff does not recommend this alternative
because the current draft of the MIS is the product of a significant multi-agency and community
outreach effort. Staff also does not recommend this alternative because no further grant
expenditures are available for additional study. The Transportation Division does not have the
fiscal or staff capacity to continue work on the investment study at this time.
B(-( 3
Highway 1 Major Investment Study Page 14
ATTACHMENTS
1. Caltrans Highway Development Stages Flow Chart.
2. SR 1 & Foothill Concept A— Widening
I SR 1 & Foothill Concept B— Roundabout
4. SR 1 & Foothill Concept C — Diamond Interchange
5. SR 1 & Foothill Concept D—Single Point Interchange
6. SR 1 & Boysen Concept A—Bike & Pedestrian Undercrossing
7. SR 1 & Highway 101 Concept A—Bridge Widening
8. SR 1 & Highway 101 Concept B— Single Point Interchange
9. Approved Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 12, 2010
10. Draft Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes, May 20, 2010
11. Council Resolution
12. Vicinity Map
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
A copy of the. Draft MIS is available in the Council Reading File.
The Draft Major Investment is also available for download at www.srlmis.com and in hard copy
for review in the Public Works offices at 919 Palm Street.
h: cil agenda repom%public works kart lg=nspon=wXYnw 1 mis"1 mis_=doc
FF?CLIECTCCVV#I.ETFD .______ Attachment 1
--- - - ----- ---
°
e
O to
a= _ g em.ad a
Y 0 Os L
0 a =CL
m ' ° °€
m U m
0)U C O O a C 0
/1 D _ 0 Q c V U LLW OC
LU 5
^ b Baa 0
N V n s = N o 'o' H mM4
u C m
S y p m O
O L= OI H% MJ N N� Np Z U w w = N a m (6�
0 m Z a O�♦ D 6 m: Q O
0.= e �qj V 6 tl U
41- Q y V m 0 y
F L- m m vm
Q m 1010 i s 3U3 NYc m
F- aLaa
_ N OY O N
- = NOf
Q Q o c o
RRRRRRQE ••
LU
w O O Z L > 6
c u
Z c W tl
� � • • • m _ 9 a N tl W m m
,1W1m ! N 6
LU
O O
N
j� Q J
a L N m €
Z ° _ ui
v0a W I e�f�pQ a N " tootle '>
" 01 'm
LL a
IL Lu 9 m o
d m
�I�1 O�i • m " ^6
______ -----------------------------
__ ________________ ________ __ a
i lC
O
^ ^
�/� m D a
- a Y/
W
E u a m v ri
LU s" ° c c u m a " RE 8 0
a i 2 c a
~ n ° �_ € a e
N � m 6 �Na° • o m m o 'y Uo ° n¢
p�
O p
(n !0
N a m p€ cZ m
H W a c a c5n i o m ° cm ma n a D
Q G ° u �O o im °o m e w L' W O a n C =' 0
> ^°
G as ��� _ Y
f m ��
W Wos Y m m °
LU a w Q C O O m o O m 0 LL m 0 0 O C
IL 0.
• • V m 01 m U ° O m
_
Z c
W D m W
______ _ m ___________________________-0y.p__
21
pGl � ____ aIx00x < 555 (7 as
m° i _________________
O Q 0 m o 9 ry y
" -
' " a
Q m 6 iN .m N :p 6
RL) Z IL
a w a
O LLI i F aY oo a oaa ° cw � p
° a
0 i waw
NJ 1l
O
d ' = m ° n o r• a W
ILE----
�
--------------------------
J F U
O U a p 7
J Eo o
m
1 z � z ci ;
a`
------------------------------------------- X31-t S
ATTACHMENT 2
SIR 1 & FOOTHILL CONCEPT A - WIDENING
0.
10.\ ap��} _ J ► `lV
w
w
,P'+�/_. v1. � 41 `F-' g�' •i a �-.sf'
tie �l v\ev � � -e..: » ». •. . �� �, � r s
fit\•1 7 a� y0.11 »
` a •- �M e v a �. s`
'� $r" sLr�..� .. r \6pe �ebrvc 3a w•s ,}�
aa• + J ♦.
_ v
4C
tcorm
kbYq e a -
iu.sLvD
`�YY1, YYY
EXISTING .ti+qns 4'i%bY ti 1
n ROFV °; 5'Y'a; 's ed � f
Y i aq qb'�i es
� bb
5 i d k Yb 9�1 1
t� E � . i .. 77717 1 qry�•�' Y ..c
- � `�"i;...w.�,+a. r-._+".�•'� '1' � 11 � �p�l F w�. ��i `t i' ' n�
• h" Ey ,; - a' _ �� U�,I�Iti� "°its ��t,' �� �s J
i3-17 Tk:RU LAHES
r��a
..,.. fi� �• _. -`7. .. ;,;�� _+,. � +a�� - ,5'6134E CME
�V SIDEWALK
�'�°° 1 9 y +MEMA 5 S$�RU'V LAN
... t + 7 - ., •� i .7.:. eft., -r
/—/(CZ:7
J,
ATTACHMENT 3
SR 1 & FOOTHILL CONCEPT B - ROUNDABOUT
a
14,
WA
xAe.�O ! m c v •^`= a m*.!,
^~' .1�'1t a 57►►b 49. X11 a� ^ - -. 4, T t � A r x . .�, .iii.
y�
rp�
A.
14
k NSA Y y14 �M v
t
t 1
1p
de
Z-� -.�^ �. A '� '' /m '• ill �.
'FOO-rHILL 183.LLVVDn it, 4p
_ w y
p t
ROW
� 9
-.ab..r..•...v+c� . 3 :e• " I��Sr b. 5g,1� �%�'� ys #.,C }
1
e $
•.�lRaa.a�ifo .-awut L.. d - •a � r �' r -
B( -1�
ATTACHMENT 4
SR 1 & FOOTHILL CONCEPT C - DIAMOND INTERCHANGE
,
s+` 4
71
Jf d` � ' "' P .r � _y Mme"' •8�.s✓�,
nrej� 1 r:
� a
�y ry�� •iV +t.
*OATH .raj 0
71
.n
Exist)IG;
KbW
a e
lit
� .. `'` .. }
a
;.Jfikp
I
Cy _y nr_ ram AVE 4f
i1 �s�+�.RmFx J1 ~�i��?'P� ,x1®TJOu..®.Y IMrtf G•iu, :TR 1'7. '' , , 4_ i. {'
� � r�0
J
ATTACHMENT 5
SR 1 & FOOTHILL CONCEPT D SINGLE yPOINT INTERCHANGE
_ 1
war
im
f A Z K!
'VA
--10:
+ J� I r��\ \\, ��' � '� a ♦_
a
. 51 '.
c4 h� �i SR �^��1Y1��y 7 } i y � •�4
"yg 4
- -
r•i'ia bon Pm;
a v i
HOW
v 40,.
dt
it t
M�ia�t AV _' �
'f +,ci�+a �' w-°`/94G.w «esi�rv!i!!. —��1—�.tT.E.f��y� 1, �' � • '' 1..
ATTACHMENT 6
SR 1 & BOYSEN CONCEPT A - BIKE & PED. UNDERCROSSING
r�_ 1
L H
a^
Y w
w
c *a -R
'I
Ire
! 4
Wit;
fir►*�. '`' .,
ATTACHMENT 7
SR 1 & HWY 101 CONCEPT A - WIDENING
11 of
46
ti 1 '
10,0001,
EXISTING : 12'
ROW SN 12 ti-
jo
r i- • P
y
1 r
Ilk
4*41
1 t�r� \`
n �-ter
ATTACHMENT 8
SR 1 & HWY 101 CONCEPT B - SINGLE POINT INTERCHANGE
� ,. s % ; ., '�..,,��'.".."�{,. ,�°'_. ,.•..,,'� It `"'rye' a:�
u s —A s :.
' x
=t" f.� � �r* �• r� mai'• �,.d6` .F�T�!'t� �� ;s'" i'
�
AP
Fn
..
r
14
.* •a rr is ,1 1r' f, .,► ��"r
.� r� �� � ' 'd, **• a a a � �` ter' �_ ��
x{
Ti ... • s r � f * 4.., *a • ? � ..
r 4 *
4�G
• ♦ it 1 O ; F�y. (l,-x �b ^ �'1 t, i�Sr'
r 4 w �'4. ^"F aP, •7 lY ea'M' 4 .µq.�� j�yR� �
FATTACHMENT 9
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 12, 2010
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Michael Boswell, Michael Draze, Eric Meyer, Airlin
Singewald, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson Mary Whittlesey,
and Chairperson Michael Multari
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Associate
Planner Phil Dunsmore, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik,
Transportation Operations Manager Jake Hudson, and Recording
Secretary Janet Miller
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of April 28, 2010, were continued to the next meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road. GPC 34-10: Acquisition of a portion of the Froom
Ranch for Open Space; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havlik)
Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager, presented the staff report, recommending the
Planning Commission determine, and report to the City Council, that the proposed
property acquisition conforms with the General Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commission commended the work Mr. Havlik has done to implement the City's
greenbelt program.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Mever, seconded by Commr. Boswell the Commission does
determine, and report to the City Council that the Proposed Prooerty acquisition
conforms with the General Plan.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Draze, Meyer, Singewald, Stevenson, Whittlesey, and
Multari
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
Planning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT 9
May 12,2010
Page 2
The motion passed on a vote of 7`0..
2. 0 (Highway 1). O 25-10: Study of the Highway 1 Corridor(Santa Rosa) for future
transportation improvements; City of San Luis Obispo — Public Works Dept.,
applicant( Phil Dunsmore/Jake Hudson)
Phil Dunsmore, Associate Planner, and Jake Hudson, Transportation Operations
Manager, presented the staff report, outlining the basis for the study, the underlying
assumptions, various strategies to address anticipated circulation issues and
description of the process involved for future consideration of any resulting projects.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission receive and discuss the draft Major
Investment Study for State Route 1 between Stenner Creek Road and the Highway 101
interchange and forward the report to Council with comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jessica Berry, SLOCOG staff, spoke in support of the report. Ms. Berry would like to
see more emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle transportation and how these modes will
be addressed.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Stevenson noted concern that projections show 70% of the traffic along the
corridor as regional traffic. He noted that some of the potential solutions do not seem
fiscally viable. Commr. Stevenson wanted to know how much public participation had
occurred as part of the study.
Commr. Meyer wanted to ensure that bike and pedestrian modes of transportation get
an equal amount of planning effort as vehicular circulation. He expressed concerns
about access to Santa Rosa and indicated that students traveling to Cuesta need a
Class 1 bike path. He recommended adjusting the plan line for Santa Rosa as soon as
possible to ensure that any interim development is done in a way that respects long-
term needs.
Commr. Draze supported roundabouts for safety but wanted to make sure bike and
pedestrian traffic is addressed.
Commr. Boswell questioned the findings regarding the Boysen and Santa Rosa
intersection and wanted to know if proposed solutions were to address bike and
pedestrian conflicts with traffic or exposure issues. He requested clarification of
assumptions concerning the impact of major employers in forecasts.
Commr. Whittlesey indicated that a roundabout and bike and pedestrian needs would
be fully explored through a PSR and recommended that revised plan lines be reviewed
i
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 2010 ATTACHMENT 9
Page 3
sooner rather than later— through the Circulation Element update if this will occur in the
near future.
Commr. Draze voiced concern for the timeline of the projects discussed in the
presentation and recommended the plan line be established through the Land Use and
Circulation Elements update.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
NO ACTION WAS REQUIRED BY COMMISSION AND STAFF WILL FORWARD
COMMISSION COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
3. City-wide. GPA 133-09: Update to the Growth. Management Policy; City of San
Luis Obispo — Community Development Dept., applicant. (Continued from April
28, 2010)
Phil Dunsmore Associate Planner, presented the staff report, recommending adoption
of the attached resolution which recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative
Declaration (ER 133-09) and amend the residential growth management policy of the
General Plan and Growth Management Regulations of the Municipal Code consistent
with alternative 2 (LUE Policies 1.10.2, 1.10.3, Table 2 and MC 17.88, based on
findings and subject to conditions which he outlined.
Chairperson Multari requested information on options 1 and 2 in the year 2014. Mr.
Dunsmore provided clarification on options in 2014.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Lenny Grant, Pismo Beach, indicated that future growth will be more limited by the lack
of good paying jobs. He encouraged production of workforce housing and flexibility in
the process. Mr. Grant supported Option 2 without the alternative to reset Table 2 of
the Land Use Element every five years.
Clay Appleton, San Luis Obispo banking industry, supports alternative 2, option 1 with
no reset to Table 2. Mr. Appleton indicated that a developer needs a long term
commitment for the housing allocations in order to get financing.
Jim Smith, San Luis Obispo, supports alternative 2, option 1 with no reset of Table 2 in
order to secure enough dwelling units to help pay for infrastructure costs.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo Workforce Housing Coalition, supports the Staff
recommendation and allowing each specific plan to develop according to their internal
schedule rather than staggering phasing of specific plan areas. He also noted that the
City should consider other fee alternatives and infrastructure costs for major
improvements such as Prado Road.
ATTACHMENT 10
I ��o DRAFT MINUTES
2 D O Regular Meeting of th
g g e
3 `PIDEg`� SAN LUIS OBISPO BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
4 Council Hearing Room, City Hall
5 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
6
7 May 20, 2010 Thursday 7 p.m.
8
9 MISSION:
10 The purpose of the Bicycle Advisory Committee is to provide oversight and policy
I1 direction on matters related to bicycle transportation in San Luis Obispo and its
173 relationship to bicycling outside the City.
14 ROLL CALL:
15 Present: Glen Matteson (Chair), Pete Deragon, Tim Gillham, Kristina Seley and Jim
16 Woolf
17 Absent: Chris Black (Vice Chair)and Matt Colonell
19 Staff Members: Peggy Mandeville, Jake Hudson, Recording Secretary Janet Miller
20 SWEARING IN CEREMONY: For new committee member, Pete Deragon.
21
23 PUBLIC COMMENT:
24 Gary Havas, San Luis Obispo, expressed an interest in the City installing through town
25 route signage for traveling bicyclists similar to other cities such as Santa Barbara.
26
27 The Committee expressed interest in staff returning to the Committee with an item
79 regarding through town bicycle signage.
30 Helene Finger, San Luis Obispo, County liaison for the Bob Jones Trail. Ms. Finger
31 encouraged the Committee to actively support progress on the Bob Jones Trail to
32 connect access to Los Osos Valley Road, and enhance accessibility.
33
34 MINUTES: March 18, 2010
35 Motion made by CM Woolf, seconded by Vice Chair Seley, to approve the minutes as
36 presented. CM Gillham abstained. Motion passed on a vote of 4:0:1.
37
3� ACTION ITEMS:
440 Agenda Item #1: State Route 1, Major Investment Study
43 Staff presented a summary of the staff report and the Planning Commission
44 recommendation. Staff addressed questions regarding the data collected, the location
45 of a "bypass" route, and the proposed Stenner Creek bike path.
46
LChair Matteson asked for a clarification of"intersection failure". He wanted to
know if a "failure" level can reached during the corridor's short peak commute time
49 or if a longer "failure" time period must be met.
50 The Committee discussed the traffic and safety issues for bicyclists along and across
51 the Highway 1 corridor.
ATTACHMENT 10
1
2 Action: Motion made by Vice Chair Seley, seconded by CM Deragons, to accept the
3 staff recommendation as presented. The Committee emphasized the need for a parallel
4 or alternative route to Santa Rosa Street for bikes and pedestrians. The motion passed
5 unanimously; on a vote of 5:0.
6
7 DISCUSSION ITEMS:
8
9 Agenda Item #2: Committee Member Items
10 Circulation Element and Bike Plan Update, Subcommittee— No Report
11
12 Agenda Item #3: Staff Items
13 Sacramento/Industrial/Capitolio paving and bike lane striping
14
15 Staff presented the Committee with an update of the upcoming Sacramento Drive
16 paving project, the input received from local businesses and the San Luis Obispo
17 County Bicycle Coalition, the counts and surveys conducted by staff, and the status of
18 other projects in the vicinity. Staff asked Committee members for their input.
19
20 Vice Chair Seley presented results from a survey she had conducted at her business.
21 She supported a bike lane along with removing the parking on Sacramento.
22 Additionally, she supported the evaluation of a four way stop sign at Capitolio and
23 Sacramento. Ms. Seley noted that vehicle speeds on Sacramento and Industrial have
24 increased since Sacramento was extended to Orcutt Road.
25
26 CM Woolfe noted that with the extension of Sacramento Drive, signage is needed to
jJ direct bicyclists from Sacramento Drive to the Orcutt Road Class I bike path.
29 (1) Vice Chair Seley made the motion, seconded by CM Woolf to install bike lanes on
3Q Sacramento.The motion passed unanimously; on a vote of 5:0.
32 (2) CM Woolf made the motion, seconded by Vice Chair Seley, to defer the
33 installation of bike lanes on Industrial and Capitolio until the next paving cycle/9years
34 with the provision of"Sharrows" in their place. The motion passed unanimously; on a
355 vote of 5:0.
37 (3) The Committee supported on unanimous consensus that staff pursue the
38 installation of a 4-way stop at the intersection of Capitolio and Sacramento noting that it
39 is difficult for bicyclists to cross Capitolio Way due to vehicle speeds..
40
41 Staff provided an update on the Railroad Safety Trail Alternate Alignment ongoing
43 research.
44 • Staff provided a review of the "Missing Link" ground breaking ceremony held the
46 previous afternoon, May 19.
47 • The Committee received an update regarding the Prefumo Creek bridge project and
48 an alternate alignment along Los Osos Valley Road and the Committee recommended
49 that a continuous bike lane be maintained on Los Osos Valley Road. Committee
50 members noted that bicyclists traveling on LOVR will stay on LOVR rather than
8 /a7--
n
ATTACHMENT 10
1 transition to a Class I bike path for a one block section between Oceanaire Drive and
2 Laguna Lane.
3
4
5 ADJOURNMENT:
6 Motion made by CM Woolf, seconded by CM Gillham, to adjourn. The motion passed
7 unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:50pm.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 \\chstore4\PublicWorks\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportabon\Transportation
29 Committees\Bike Committee\BAC Minutes\2010\052010 BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE draft.doc
8/ -off k
ATTACHMENT 11
RESOLUTION NO. (2010 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE HIGHWAY 1
MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY
WHEREAS, in 2006, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the
California State Department of Transportation (CalTrans), commissioned a major investment
study of Highway 1 from Stenner Creek Road to the Highway 1 & 101 interchange to study
potential future operational and safety deficiencies; and
WHEREAS, in February 2009, the City entered into an agreement with the San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) and the California State Department of
Transportation (CalTrans), establishing the City as the lead agency in the preparation of the
Study, and
WHEREAS, consistent with this agreement the City in cooperation with SLOCOG,
CalTrans, CalPoly University, and the San Luis Obispo County has completed the study; and
WHEREAS, current and potential operational and safety deficiencies have been
identified in the study as well as general concepts for addressing those deficiencies; and
WHEREAS, the study will provide a basis for shaping these concepts into feasible
alternatives and for planning the fiscal resources to implement them.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1., The City Council endorses the Highway 1 Major investment study,
thereby acknowledging the potential deficiencies identified in the study and supporting a
continued effort to address them.
Upon motion of seconded by and on the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES
ABSENT:
R 10184
Resolution No. (201( -.;ries) ATTACHMENT 11
Page 2
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 6th day of July 2010.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Elaina Cano
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Attachment 12
SR 1 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY VICINITY MAP
SR 1 STUDY G0RkI
DO.`R�'`
b+r0i+.i r '. µf i '� � I � •
tea
• Ali ,�'ti....;:,¢�r'iwru��':ai�
7 LcxJ "J Inv _ /tom.
s
. „1 �•;•� p g S Sly ®� \.6m.Y�.�� o '� 1, e, /''���/ I
LA
1 � a �✓ I
r.rr;.•.. -�v-mr 1' SMs.a. op��. � � � ��p, e�s •- ; eTJ®�
1- a aw � . a a ., • •4O
vo 6
nj ' 'Y'�GH u '. Lt
wr
�,.� ° a • D /�i a Cm
Sim
00,40
gl..d► .77�•�•s•.•!.yti�.haal•�!•@�d•!s!.�CY...!�O.!l�•a Car{1i' ai.•�'!° ebv.�v•.rYre.••.u'•!id�G'® IlL-E.
h'a..! +Y `SW.°.'.s•.�a' _�_•m
"�. 4 _ •.m m .� •i�' —1-44
!a4•�.: o T:.e7 > . as
P ® 'l
1711 f:O •vtd.
Rtlyy ad•+i��a�iy Iurr~.TfY.."�i'ypO.
e .,.a �,t at •s � ¢ s b s� t6 a y�De.� :��;,•.•....� ..��d 8 G" � � ° �!���0
.� Y taa �'. 4q"'Y • ', sO��.i• i f• °�a v�� `R�/'.: q � s.� °Y � * . I RaJ:.. au;lw�,.I
/�!� �i 11�� •.!ejr
1��. �i••i.. . viii'!`I.r,F:� `.'T �
t .t YYY d'r y ,3°ti� ' Z 6;ice-rN: ;,�',,;.`�.dl,! 1 d '�•`"',... \ w�, �. I
N ? ��1or,'. • . �(y`/y/�''��;�� �•!.vQ►'Y'�(iu w,��
ZVI
a• % oto- .w+ ti •'� �'' +o°
ol
S it • ® ��®� `\ Y \.,(fit• 9 ~�
'' g1 3
Y ocityof s
an luis
oBispo
0 % OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
4 $ O
990 Palm Street ® San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 ■ 805/781-7119
July 1, 2010 1 RED FILE
- MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED
To: City Council DAT = ITEM C_/ JUL 01 2010
From: Mayor Dave Romero
SLO CITY CLERK
Re: Council Agenda Item Bl-Highway 1 Major Investment Study
I have just completed my review of this report and find it to be exceptionally well done in
most regards. The analysis and proposed solutions are thorough, carefully and reasonably
presented.
I do however find one major weakness which I feel must be corrected prior to final
submittal and acceptance of the document. This is found in section 6.1 "Future Traffic
Volumes."The analysis only considers future traffic growth due to development in the
study area. This might be appropriate in some areas, but simply is not realistic in this
area.
In my opinion, the study must consider the huge effect which may be caused by traffic
generated external to the area; Cal Poly, Cuesta College, CMC, Los Osos, north coast
future development, and the general traffic increase which historically takes place on all
state highways in California caused by increasing populations, commerce, and leisure
travel. The UCSB 2009 Economic Forecast shows that under normal conditions of
prosperity, US Route 1 traffic at Foothill rose at a rate of 1.7% per year between 1996-
2005. US Route 101 traffic at Madonna Road rose at a rate of 2.5% per year between
1996-2003. Caltrans records show a 20 year(1995-2015)projected annual growth rate on
Santa Rosa of.83%, and a 20 year(1995-2015) annual projected growth rate on Hwy 101
(at Prado) of 1.84%. In addition, I submit that as long as housing remains so expensive in
San Luis Obispo, we will continue to have many of our employees choosing to live in
nearby communities and commute to SLO for their jobs, many along highways 101 and
1.
If we ignore these traffic generators, traffic will be underestimated, and we will suffer
serious congestion long before many of the dates estimated in the report.
The lack of consideration of external effects, and the unrealistic assumptions regarding
modal split were basic flaws in the 1994 Circulation element (and one of the reasons that
I voted against it as a Council Member). Despite millions of dollars this city has spent in
bicycle and bus improvements and encouraging carpooling, the change in modal split
over the past 15 years has been very minor. This unplanned for increase in vehicular
traffic has caused our San Luis Obispo residents to suffer with congestion that might have
been avoided by more realistic planning.
'itl of Sdfl luis amspO
In addition, all of California is entering into a time of limited funds to make traffic
improvements,thus allowing only slow progress when we finally reach critical points
when something must be done.
I strongly suggest that our consultant be required to use more realistic traffic projection
figures. This will cause earlier dates when we must have measures in place to avoid
intolerable congestion. This would encourage the City, SLOCOG, and Caltrans to
commence earlier planning, which will partially counter the endless delays we now
experience with major projects.
Much of the quality of life for our future citizens rests on this decision.
Very Truly •Yours,
David F. Romero .
Mayon tl�2D ('o H�Ir4�L
CrCOUNCIL L 'CDD DIR
C'1'�48c�i/Naa- FIN DIR
�'� =8O'`/r<"FIRE CHIEF
f�'ATTORNEY GSW DIR
[ tLERK/ORIG t�OLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS ',!.��-REC DIR
P--�-�-- tL 0TIL DIR
1�.�7ti ku� iF?DIP .
NES nrr1� ��2lN�i[.
Cis-zuc
• • Page 2 of 4
U.S. Route 101 at Madonna uRoad Traffic _
San Luis Obispo
number of cars per day
77,000 77,000
75,000
72,000 7%000
70, 0 70,000 706000 69, 0
65,900
66,000 67, 0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
c >
U.S. Route 1 at Foothill Traffic
San Luis Obispo
i
number of cars per day f
i
3%000
33,900 33,000 �o_3a,soa 34,e00 000
900 31,000
31,900 31,
� 3%000
i
j
i
1996 1997 1998 1999 2040 2001 2902 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 —
I
6/29/2010
Q �
�
7 » q
\ / cz
z4
x %
w # b
} / � . �z
+ 7m i
ƒ } �
62
¢ � z�
@ �.
/
� . . . . - E /
2 @ b ° c
�. § } } zcoz
( k 0 a
0 ) e 2 « U) JE�3
O k / ca
cdk . �� o
a = k � 5 . Q
ca
§ _ z LL
CL
o � leei� Q
L
a) cr) zees C'j
§ E LO R . .
A \ § Cl) § \
0 2 . c
2k k \ k cm � .
co U z61
E I E °
Q e & e
2 7 / £ I ° ` .
w = c
f / CD Q CD Cl CD 0 CD C,
Q \ CD
r
f 2 cq
8 _
3 � e e �m �R }O¥¥ r o
�
�
CD
0
LU T
N C)
(h
X C) LZOZ
T O
LO,.� N II
C 0 �
T
Q II
� A ZZOZ
G
LLOZ
R
= i
L HI a ZLOZ
Sc Q NI r r
■ O
NN ® LOOZ
i L
m L
c
E ° m
0 0
> E 0 -a aT LI
4 Z ca I L ZOOZ C
m
4 m a N o. ® m
.y ami ca r ■ ■ LL
O 2 J �_ 0
H
0 L66L =
J N J
C }
G 1°
Z66 L N
w m w P CD L ■
Q CI 7LOio
N ti
Q� Oto an n w ■
N
> to
y o Lesl
po
w ^ m o N U
O G �I >- N N N
y (� Z86L
■
.. = Eca
■
W cu � c w
_ LLSL
00 C,
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V a.a 0 0 rn 0 o m 0 v0 m $ c
LL. o a T land
cc
H
I�iiiii�llllllliilllllll11°�IIIIIIII
council MCMORAn6um
July 6, 2010
TO: City Council _ DGOPy CAi4
i CfCOUNCIL OcDD DIR
VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager I` , r ��C�'FIN DIR
I @'ATTORNEY SIRE C�IIEF
IIIlirtLERK/ORIG Dla
FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director r ❑ DE T HEADS �LIOE Dr�F
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager Gf'RieG'GtFi '
rn u ®'UTIL''DIR
SUBJECT: Item B-1: Hwy 1 Major Investment Study MZ-5 Vic.
e-«
It has come to Staffs attention that the language in Sections 6.0 & 6.1 of the Major
Investment Study does not clearly indicate that growth assumptions were based on a
comprehensive study incorporating all projected development throughout the County.
Therefore staff has revised this language to the following:
- 6.0 Future Conditions
The future traffic conditions within the study area are identified in this section. Study area
traffic volumes are based on the City's 2035 TransCAD travel demand model. The City's
TransCAD travel demand model assumes projected developed for all of San Luis Obispo
County including but not limited to North County, South County, Los Osos, Cal Poly,
Cuesta California Mens Colony, etc..... Projected growth rates have been developed in
cooperation with SLOCOG, SLO County, CalTrans, and Ca/Poly and each of these
agencies have accepted these growth rates for the purposes of this study. These growth
rates are consistent with the City's growth management policies.
6.1 Future Traffic Volumes
The projected 2035 traffic volumes for the study area reflect relatively low growth rates.
Based on regional and local growth trends, little traffic volume growth is to be expected.
Residential development is only anticipated to grow at 0.78 percent annually until 2035
throughout the County. Non-residential development is anticipated to grow a total of 6.40
percent between now and 2035 throughout the County. Figure 6.1 summarizes the 2035
traffic volume projections and the intersection operations for the study area.
It has also come to Staffs attention that the graphic in Attachment 5 of the Staff report is in
error, the graphic shows a traditional diamond interchange while is should depict a single
point interchange. The corrected attachment 5 is provided as the attachment to this memo.
Any further questions can be directed to Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson at
805.781.7255. RED FILE
9:\Stan-reports-egemlas+nimn2sl=nenm\2010V1em bt-highway 1 mis.Wc R E C E I V E D _ M ING AGENDA
JUL 0 6 7010 DA G /o ITEM # $
SLO CITY.CLERK
ATTACHMENT 5
SR 1 & FOOTHILL CONCEPT D - SINGLE POINT INTERCHANGE
I 4b
Of
BLVD
V
-
EXISTING -.-`---_-r-
1 Row #'
-��•�'� a} '•4 � � a � •"• � �� i•tom./• :f
.................._MEINECKE AVE
From: Hudson, Jake
Sent: Fri 7/2/2010 2:31 PM
To: Romero, Dave
Cc: Bochum, Tim; Walter, Jay; Lichtig, Katie; Richardson, April
Subject: RE: Highway 1 MIS Concern
Dave,
Thank you, its a good catch. We certainly want to be clear about how we
arrived at our forecasts. I have forwarded your memo to our consultant and
they are revising the language ASAP. We should have a Red File put out with
the new language by Tuesday afternoon. I'll ask April Richardson by way of
this email to set up a meeting on Tuesday with you, Myself, Jay & Tim. . . I
will also ask our consultant to attend as well.
Thanks,
Jake
-----Original Message-----
From: Romero, Dave
Sent: Fri 7/2/2010 11:59 AM
To: Hudson, Jake
Subject: RE: Highway 1 MIS Concern
Jake,
My understanding of the words in that paragraph would never lead me to the
conclusion you have described. I would be pleased to meet with you and
whoever else you wish to bring to enlighten me. Tuesday morning, any time
after 9:30. Leave me a message at home 781-7415. Thanks.
Dave
From: Hudson, Jake
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 6:27 PM
To: Romero, Dave
Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Bochum, Tim; Walter, Jay
Subject: Highway 1 MIS Concern
Dave,
I was reading through your memo on the Highway 1 MIS and I think there maybe
some confusion. The language you are referring to in the study was not meant
to indicate that the analysis only considered future development in the
study area rather that the analysis only included operational assessment of
intersections & segments within the study area. The traffic model that was
used for the analysis is very robust including all projected development for
25 years of all areas of the County including North County, South County,
Los Osos, Cal Poly, Cuesta, CMC, SLO Airport etc.
i
i
r
The projected growth rates were developed in cooperation with SLOCOG, SLO
County, CalTrans, and CalPoly. Each of those agencies participated in
developing the growth rates and has accepted them for the purposes of this
study. The traffic projections are also on target with the UCSB forecasts
that were attached to your memo.
If you .like we are available to meet with on Tuesday morning before the
Council meeting to discuss this further. I'll also look at improving the
language in the final publication of the study to better clarify that the
forecasts did' assume future development throughout the county.
Thanks,
Jake Hudson, Traffic Operations Manager
Public Works, Transportation Div.
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
PH 805.781.7255
FAX 805.721.7198
Page 1 of 1
Already on it, it's on Jay's desk for review and should be to you guys within the next couple of hours.
Thanks,
Jake Hudson,Traffic Operations Manager
Public Works,Transportation Div.
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
PH 805.781.7255
FAX 805.721.7198
From: Chippendale, Sue
Sent:Tuesday,July 06, 2010 9:04 AM
To: Hudson,Jake
Cc: Cano, Elaina
Subject: Red File
Hi, Jake:
In case you don't get my VML message, Katie has requested that your reply via email to Dave regarding the"Highway 1
MIS Concern"be sent to Administration/Katie as a Red File on the proper memorandum form. Katie will review your
response and OK it before it is sent out.
Thanks,
Sue
Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5255 (20100706)
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
hqp://www.eset.com
Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5255 (20100706)
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
hqp://www.eset.com
7/6/2010